Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Naspino
I seriously doubt you can stroll back to the holding cell area unsearched.

You're probably correct. It's a good example of the public interest in the security of suspects and the possibility of escape trumping my 4th amendment rights to walk around unsearched on public property. Like I said before, the cops don't need a good reason to prevent my access to prisoners, I need to present them with a good reason to be there. But they will need a reason to search my person in the front of the station.

What's been presented in the BWI case so far is no specific reason to search everyone. What that means to me is this is just more experiments at the BWI security lab. The security bureaucrats perform these experiments to test the acceptance of new security measures. Those who believe these searches materially improve security have passed the test.

193 posted on 01/06/2004 11:56:58 AM PST by palmer (Solutions, not just slogans -JFKerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies ]


To: palmer
Which is why I'd like to see an ammendment that would clarify what is reasonable for the government to do and when? Security should be 100% active for bases, etc and switchable on and off by the president or terror alert in other cases (airports, courthouses).
196 posted on 01/06/2004 11:59:40 AM PST by Naspino (Exodus 22: 28 Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson